Rusty Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) NBC Sports reported that the Sox haven’t been profitable for 3 seasons, basically since COVID. That being said, anyone in business knows it’s very easy to get a little creative with accounting to avoid certain tax situations. There’s a reason that many billionaires are able to avoid paying a single dollar of federal income tax. The real value of the team is the sales price compared to what it was purchased for. Jerry also owns 50% of NBC Sports so a. The article could be heavily biased and b. He’s still getting his through the tv deals. I’m sure there are other connected corporations that we are not aware of that are having Sox revenues funneled through them to show a loss. About a year ago Jerry acquired a majority stake in Stadium, which I’m confident means 50%+, which is why he’s moving the Sox and Bulls to that provider. It will give him leverage to get that network on other carriers which means more money for him, they are headquartered at the UC which means he gets to pay himself rent instead of Blackstone, and he can continue to write off the tv deal expenses to a different company that he owns, he’ll have true majority control so expect cost cutting on production and on air talent, and he can write off his losses in a couple years when NBC Chicago. That’s how you use fuzzy accounting to direct money around to show that everything is operating at a loss. I’m very confident that Schiffren was hired because he’s done basketball and football so once they move to Stadium, Jerry can use him on almost every broadcast to save money. The dude is basically a poor man’s version of Jason. I guarantee he’s way, way cheaper, and can be convinced to stay away from National commitments that Jason started to have so you can plan to put the guy on a ton of Bulls, Sox, and CFB games. I wouldn’t put it past Jerry to put him on a hockey game if it saves him a few bucks. Edited April 26 by Rusty 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 13 minutes ago, Rusty said: NBC Sports reported that the Sox haven’t been profitable for 3 seasons, basically since COVID. That being said, anyone in business knows it’s very easy to get a little creative with accounting to avoid certain tax situations. There’s a reason that many billionaires are able to avoid paying a single dollar of federal income tax. The real value of the team is the sales price compared to what it was purchased for. Jerry also owns 50% of NBC Sports so a. The article could be heavily biased and b. He’s still getting his through the tv deals. I’m sure there are other connected corporations that we are not aware of that are having Sox revenues funneled through them to show a loss. About a year ago Jerry acquired a majority stake in Stadium, which I’m confident means 50%+, which is why he’s moving the Sox and Bulls to that provider. It will give him leverage to get that network on other carriers which means more money for him, they are headquartered at the UC which means he gets to pay himself rent instead of Blackstone, and he can continue to write off the tv deal expenses to a different company that he owns, he’ll have true majority control so expect cost cutting on production and on air talent, and he can write off his losses in a couple years when NBC Chicago. That’s how you use fuzzy accounting to direct money around to show that everything is operating at a loss. I’m very confident that Schiffren was hired because he’s done basketball and football so once they move to Stadium, Jerry can use him on almost every broadcast to save money. The dude is basically a poor man’s version of Jason. I guarantee he’s way, way cheaper, and can be convinced to stay away from National commitments that Jason started to have so you can plan to put the guy on a ton of Bulls, Sox, and CFB games. I wouldn’t put it past Jerry to put him on a hockey game if it saves him a few bucks. Look, I know the Sox get some revenues that don't come through on the baseball side, but if you track the Forbes +/- by year, the Sox are somewhere around $100 million in losses in that time. While I don't think it is that bad, I would be pretty surprised if they were hiding an extra hundred million dollars in that time period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulie4Pres Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Look, I know the Sox get some revenues that don't come through on the baseball side, but if you track the Forbes +/- by year, the Sox are somewhere around $100 million in losses in that time. While I don't think it is that bad, I would be pretty surprised if they were hiding an extra hundred million dollars in that time period. What he's saying is, while the Sox could technically be losing money, Reinsdorf is not losing money on the Sox. After all, he pays himself for a lot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 22 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Look, I know the Sox get some revenues that don't come through on the baseball side, but if you track the Forbes +/- by year, the Sox are somewhere around $100 million in losses in that time. While I don't think it is that bad, I would be pretty surprised if they were hiding an extra hundred million dollars in that time period. Don’t forget that he began his career as an IRS tax lawyer. “He made his initial fortune in real estate, taking advantage of the Frank Lyon Co. v. United Statesdecision by the United States Supreme Court, which allowed economic owners of realty to sell property and lease it back, while transferring the tax deduction for depreciation to the title owner.” “He developed a specialty in real estate partnership tax shelters.” He’s a smart guy that knows how to make the financial statements work. That’s why the initial investors agreed to give him full control when he only had a 12% stake and is rumored today to be around 18% owner. He is very good at making people absolute buckets of cash. Fans care about wins, investors care about returns. He is essentially running the Sox & Bulls as an investment or real estate portfolio type of business. Edited April 26 by Rusty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 56 minutes ago, Rusty said: Don’t forget that he began his career as an IRS tax lawyer. “He made his initial fortune in real estate, taking advantage of the Frank Lyon Co. v. United Statesdecision by the United States Supreme Court, which allowed economic owners of realty to sell property and lease it back, while transferring the tax deduction for depreciation to the title owner.” “He developed a specialty in real estate partnership tax shelters.” He’s a smart guy that knows how to make the financial statements work. That’s why the initial investors agreed to give him full control when he only had a 12% stake and is rumored today to be around 18% owner. He is very good at making people absolute buckets of cash. Fans care about wins, investors care about returns. He is essentially running the Sox & Bulls as an investment or real estate portfolio type of business. Sure, but no amount of magical tax knowledge is going to make up $100 million with these kind of revenues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Sure, but no amount of magical tax knowledge is going to make up $100 million with these kind of revenues. You serious Clark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwritecode Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) Let's not forget that he hasn't actually payed rent on the ballpark in like 11 years. EDIT: Actually, he did have to pay some in 2022 because the attendance was over 1.9 million. Edited April 26 by Iwritecode 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 On 4/24/2024 at 10:12 AM, T R U said: I don't get it. If you don't want to pay the price to sign these high dollar fee agents then invest your money into scouting and development. At least that way you can hopefully produce your own star players and just keep that cycle going. We seemingly like to live in the middle ground of behind the times in scouting/development and only shelling out money for mid tier free agents who wont move the needle. Also, continually hiring unqualified alumni to lead your team/organization. It's really simple. The Sox don't want to spend money in their front office either. They cost cut everywhere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 5 minutes ago, Rusty said: You serious Clark? With the kind of revenues the Sox are pulling down? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: With the kind of revenues the Sox are pulling down? Yes. We’ll agree to disagree then because…I’m just a small business owner and I guarantee myself and my accountant could easily hit that ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 21 minutes ago, Rusty said: We’ll agree to disagree then because…I’m just a small business owner and I guarantee myself and my accountant could easily hit that ratio. If you want to provide something deeper I will listen, but just "trust me" isn't much of an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) If the Sox are such a money loser, why has the franchise value gone up significantly over the years? The latest I've read put their value at around $2B and around middle of the pack among MLB teams. I'm not a business guy or an accountant, but how can such a thing be true if the team has been losing money for several years now? Serious question - not just a rhetorical one. Maybe there's a great explanation for this. According to this site, they've gone up $400M in value since 2020, in other words, since Covid started. https://www.statista.com/statistics/194606/mlb-franchise-value-of-the-chicago-white-sox-since-2006/ Edited April 26 by 77 Hitmen 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: If you want to provide something deeper I will listen, but just "trust me" isn't much of an argument. Ok… how about. I’m right and you are wrong. Deal with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 3 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: If the Sox are such a money loser, why has the franchise value gone up significantly over the years? The latest I've read put their value at around $2B and around middle of the pack among MLB teams. I'm not a business guy or an accountant, but how can such a thing be true if the team has been losing money for several years now? Serious question - not just a rhetorical one. Maybe there's a great explanation for this. According to this site, they've gone up $400M in value since 2020, in other words, since Covid started. https://www.statista.com/statistics/194606/mlb-franchise-value-of-the-chicago-white-sox-since-2006/ It’s not true. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 29 minutes ago, Rusty said: Ok… how about. I’m right and you are wrong. Deal with it? Cool. What amazing compelling knowledge. Glad your tax cheats have given you insight into professional sports ownership accounting at a level that can't be questioned without hurt feelings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 33 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: If the Sox are such a money loser, why has the franchise value gone up significantly over the years? The latest I've read put their value at around $2B and around middle of the pack among MLB teams. I'm not a business guy or an accountant, but how can such a thing be true if the team has been losing money for several years now? Serious question - not just a rhetorical one. Maybe there's a great explanation for this. According to this site, they've gone up $400M in value since 2020, in other words, since Covid started. https://www.statista.com/statistics/194606/mlb-franchise-value-of-the-chicago-white-sox-since-2006/ Supply and demand for ego projects has been the single biggest driver of franchise values in the last few decades, versus back when sports was actually a normal business model. A pro franchise has become something closer to a megayahct to be shown off to the world versus something to profit from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Cool. What amazing compelling knowledge. Glad your tax cheats have given you insight into professional sports ownership accounting at a level that can't be questioned without hurt feelings. It’s not cheating dude. It’s literally the tax code. Smart people are able to take advantage of it. Talk to your local congressman not me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chick Mercedes Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 (edited) On 4/26/2024 at 8:38 AM, Lip Man 1 said: He has actually said this a few times, but he hasn't spoken much about it publicly over the decades. I've posted the comments from others both inside and outside the organization who have told me the same thing regarding the future. I think just a few years ago one of the mainstream newspapers had a story or two on the future of the Sox where there were comments as well along these lines but I honestly don't remember a lot of specifics from the story. And frankly given the state of the Bulls under Michael running things, the very LAST thing any Sox fan should want is another Reinsdorf running the franchise for another 40+ years. Certainly not plan A. I don’t know the family structure of Blackhawks ownership, but Bill Wirtz died and Rocky took over. The rest is history. Probably a one off to what usually happens, which is inherited mediocrity. But we seem to be locked into this situation. I stepped away from following the team after the Tatis deal, and had a wonderful time away. Then, they began an attractive youth movement, which was obviously a failed direction, but it brought me back. And now this s%*# show is how I am rewarded for taking the leap of faith. I’m sure I can’t go on like this. Edited April 28 by Chick Mercedes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.